appeal of film over digital?

B

Brick33308

Member
Local time
10:13 PM
Joined
Jun 19, 2024
Messages
31
HI, I currently shoot with a M10 and a few really great Leica lenses, absolutely love this setup. But lately I've been getting the bug to shoot film.

I understand all the reasons people like film over digital in terms of the shooting experience, and indeed I got a sense of those reasons when in February I got my M10 and put my Sony A7RV on the shelf (except for performance and certain photo trip photography). Switching to manual rangefinder focus has slowed down my process and made me more contemplative about what/why I'm taking a particular picture. So all good in terms of understanding that such process will continue and perhaps be enhanced if I begin shooting film.

My inquiry today is what are the attributes about a film image that others like as compared to digital. Lately I've been processing my digital images with various film-like presets, two example are posted below (taken with my 35/1.4 steel rim reissue). Is there a look with film that can't be reproduced with digital processing?

Look forward to your responses!


 
I'll admit that for me there isn't any appeal of film over digital, mainly because of the associated costs involved. Whenever I want to 'slow down the process' I mount one of my manual focus lenses on one of my Sony's and put it on full manual. That works for me and so far I've been happy with the 'film' look I've gotten out of them.
 
I mean the look of film and it’s cameras that allow for many different formats and experiences would be the reason. It’s hard to get the look of large format and the experience of a view camera in digital. In small formats, the grain and color shifts etc. Black and white that uses silver. Simpler cameras etc.

The thing about making digital look like film is it is sort of fake for me. I prefer my digital to look like digital. If you like the film look, use film.

I wholeheartedly prefer digital, but most of the photography that I am influenced by was film photography. Both can be great. Life is too short to use the wrong camera.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, there's not that much difference in the look, and digital can be tweaked so that it's often indistinguishable. Besides, I'm not sure what people mean by the film look. Velvia 50 or Delta 3200?
I like film for completely irrational reasons. I like the feel and look of older equipment (ever handle a 1950's Rolleiflex?). I've shot film for sixty years and I know how to make it work. I like the idea that there is a tangible object, negative or slide, that was present at the time my image was made, with an indexical relationship to the subject that digital can't have. And i like the notion of a magical, alchemical relationship of light and silver creating and preserving an image.
Like I said, nothing rational. And I have no issues with someone preferring digital, and understand why they might. It just doesn't come down to rationality and practicality for me.
 
Only use black and white film. I have an analog darkroom to process. Still bulk load 35 film.

I have made some large prints from medium format, Rolleiflex.

Color is 100% digital. I use an iPhone. Process with my iPad.

Every so often I’ll drag out my Canon SLR. iMac still works that I use with Photoshop.

I get good results with my iPhone.

For my way of thunking, photography is about posing (people), lighting and composition.

When I operated my business, I found out that beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder.
 
Last edited:
I love the feeling of a well-made all-metal mechanical camera in my hands.

I love owning things that are made to last a lifetime (with reasonable service) instead of disposable plastic consumer electronics devices designed to become obsolete every few years.

I love the fact that light shining onto film creates a tangible physical negative.

With respect to the "film look," I find most digital photos have a harsh look that I find unpleasant. I prefer scans of well-exposed 35mm black-and-white negatives to digital images from any digital camera I've owned. This isn't to say that 35mm is better than digital, just what I prefer. I think practically any Micro Four Thirds or APS-C or larger sensor digital camera produced in the last 15 years makes images objectively better in practically every technical sense than 35mm film. Actually, I think even my iPhone takes technically better photos than my 35mm cameras, but I personally prefer the film images.

Actually, I've been reexamining my thoughts about film given the astronomical price increases of color film in recent years. In looking back over my photos for the past several years, I've come to the conclusion that I don't really like the look of any C41 color film enough to justify the cost, and am probably just going to shoot black-and-white film from now on. (And I would have to rule out E6 for cost reasons, as slide film is way too expensive to shoot in any kind of volume these days.)
 
I've completely made the transition to digital. Apples-to-apples 35mm film to 35mm (24mp+) digital format, I no longer see any advantage to shooting film. With digital you get the best of both worlds; if you want the "film look" you have the option of adding it in post.

There is only one reason a keep my M6 - reliability; if my digital camera breaks, I can still shoot.
 
I play with it a bit, keep my hand in but realistically only in MF or larger does film have any real advantage.

The only other reason for me to use film is to use a camera type - TLR or field camera - that can't be easily replicated by digital.
 
Film forces you to pre-visualize the picture, and to deal with (or celebrate or exploit) the unexpected. It also imposes a delay before you see the results in which you can think more about your expectations for the image - and thus have a clearer idea of how you'd approach post-capture treatment. Of course, if you are relying on the results to feed your family, you'll prefer less uncertainty.
 
I've made the transition to ... film except for snapshots at work. I only shoot B&W and now that I gradually found and tested what I like, I'm staying with film for the time being. Only exceptionnally was I capable of doing a nice digital B&W print. With film it feels easy : better dynamic, much better midtones, no time spend behind a PC. Some optical defects with old lenses render well with film. And when you got from 24x36 to 4x5, well: another world to explore.

Film cost less than regularly buying a PC and a good screen. I intend to keep that down in the future by bulk loading.
 
Honestly, I seldom pay any attention to the methods others use for their photos. I'm kinda involved in the technical process when fiddling around with my own digital photos, getting the look overall to my satisfaction. But when viewing other's photos, the format/process never comes up. It's either a photo that engages me or it's one that doesn't float my boat.

Every now and then I get the urge to shoot film again. And then I remember what's involved--the drudgery of processing, the expense of film and chemicals, the time involved and a dozen other things. I really enjoy not doing that stuff. I like working on photos with the lights on, especially now that my eyesight has dimmed considerably and it's difficult for me to see in low light. And I really like the way my pictures look these days. More so than when I printed them in the darkroom.
 
Brick, the real difference lies in the end product. As long as you're comparing on a screen there can be minimal difference. The difference comes when you look at silver-gelatin fiber-based or platinum prints. I use black & white film (with the exception of the odd iPhone photo), process and print in my darkroom. It's a complete process and that is part of the satisfaction for me.
 
Funny, but when 35 mm film was king, I remember people's ideals being mostly about speed, efficiency, and speed. These prevailing attitudes shaped Leica M cameras at least through the M7. If anyone was speaking in favor of slowing down and being more contemplative, they were in the minority. Yet here we are, 2+ decades later, and some of those very same cameras are now upheld as examples of slowing-down and being more contemplative, what the heck? When I seek a bit of stillness, I turn off my computer, and leave my mobile devices at home. Big Tech likes to sell you problems then turn around and sell you their solutions too, but I say [Anglo-Saxon term] that.

Maybe I could replicate the look that I get with film in the digital realm - if I knew what I wanted the end result to look like, and that's a pretty big "If", Often I don't know what I want until I actually see it.

Joys of analog: Getting to play with new toys like Phoenix and P30 for just a few bucks. Way safer and cheaper (and more reversible!) than hacking digital camera sensors. And much of the old film hardware has gone beyond obsolescence, to a sort of timelessness.
 
JeffS7444 said:
Funny, but when 35 mm film was king, I remember people's ideals being mostly about speed, efficiency, and speed. These prevailing attitudes shaped Leica M cameras at least through the M7. If anyone was speaking in favor of slowing down and being more contemplative, they were in the minority. Yet here we are, 2+ decades later, and some of those very same cameras are now upheld as examples of slowing-down and being more contemplative, what the heck?
Click to expand...
Well, film is expensive, it is only one frame at a time, you have to manually focus it... vs. a relatively pedestrian mirrorless camera, it could be deemed slow. However, I also know what you mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom